POLL: Your opinion about the Panasonic “Full Frame temptation”.

In these days of Photokina Panasonic stated multiple times that they want to play a major role in the PRO market. And they also admitted that they are “thinking Full Frame”. Panasonic is reading 43rumors so le’t give them a hint about the 43rumors readers preferences. The short question for you is. If Panasonic would launch a FF mirrorless system with a new range of lenses:

If Panasonic would launch a FF mirrorless system with a new range of lenses:

I would consider to buy into that system!

I may would not buy into the system but I think it is a good move that will help the popularity of MFT too.

Whenever you go for a shopping just click on those links and buy whatever you want and I will get a small commission for it without you having to pay one single penny extra: Amazon, Olympus US store, Adorama, B&H, eBay.

Daemonius

Ofc yes. We need mirrorless (affordable) FF. They should have it already.. :/ Today is late.

the only reason Panasonic should even just about slightly consider “full frame” is because the AF100 didn’t do as well as hoped… (I’m not sure myself what they should do in this segment, but I’m inclined to keep with a mft sensor preferably oversized for 16:9 and 21:9 with 5-axis stablisation)

if they want to grab more market share from canikon they should keep developing new mft technologies (like Olympus), outward design and work on their marketing and pricing as well as taking advantage of canon and nikon’s proven predictability, you can’t grab canikonians just by giving them more of the same…

jim

Micro is the future – regardless, the technology will reach a point where need for larger than 4/3 sensor is non existant (possibly larger than compact cam will be redundent). Lenses will be smaller and sharper. Future robotics and imaging will be about small, cheep, plentiful and with specks we call state of the art now.

No FF camera of 8yrs ago is as good as the OMD, more to the point the OMD whips them!

So why wast time devoloping for yesterday?
If you want DOF then don’t wast time making 35mm sensors, develope F0.5 lenses!

kesztio

If you want DOF then don’t wast time making 35mm sensors, develope F0.5 lenses!

+1000! This is I keep speaking about!

TempTag

Not sure if need is the right word but if size and quality was right, and the company committed to a solid lens line-up, I would buy a FF mirrorless system from any company without hesitation.

I appreciate my m43 stills and video but I would be willing to pay for a quality improvement.

I doubt that the lenses would be small. Leica M-mount lenses can be compact because they don’t have AF or OIS systems built in.
Not sure what Panasonic would gain by going FF, but who knows what could happen? Maybe a new partnership is in the works?

Guest

It isn’t the lack of AF or OIS that makes them small (although that helps a little).

It’s mainly the fact that they’re ALL PRIMES.

Esa Tuunanen

> It’s mainly the fact that they’re ALL PRIMES.
And for the big part focal lengths close to that which allows small lens sizes.

Any fast aperture longer focal length lens would be still big.
And for example good quality travel zoom of 28-300mm field of view will always be big and heavy for 35mm format. Same for any kind non slow tele zooms.
There would be fewer lenses than on 4/3 whose size could in any way benefit just from change to mirrorless mount. And with bigger sensor too short back focus distance could easily start causing serious oblique angle light problems limiting performance near edges.
(RX1 is different because of all optical components surely having been optimized specifically for each others)

sacundim

Rangefinder lenses aren’t so small just because they’re primes; it’s because there’s no mirror, so the lens mount and the lens’s rear element can be closer to the film plane. This is of course an advantage shared by mirrorless digital cameras as well.

Chris K

If they could manage bodies and lenses that were still much smaller than FF DSLRs, I might buy in. But there’s no way I buy anything even close to the size of a FF DSLR. I’ve already got a 5D2 for that.

bean5y

I voted “i think it’s a waste of time and resources” with a big BUT!

I think it depends a lot on the concept.

Large sensors do have benefits, but a new camera with large sensor by panasonic would have to have to be unlike anything existing.

They would have to review all near future technologies, and optimize the new system for longevity. Just as Four Thirds foresaw the possibilities of a small sensor (but wrongly assumed we’d move on from larger format), the large format panasonic must foresee the possibilities of the latest tech.

DSLRs will become outdated. Now is a golden opportunity for makers like Panasonic.

uth

mirrorless Full Frame!!!!

You should do that if you want to be more acknowledged from world of Pro.

right now, you can say that APS-C and Full frame are separate even they can use lenses together.

so, why don’t you do that too. you can have another system for those professional photographers(or someone who have enough money lol).

amateurs and smi-pro can go with m4/3 and real photographers will have mirrorless full frame(with leica lenses).

wow!! sound amazing right ;P

The other Mike H

“You should do that if you want to be more acknowledged from world of Pro.”

None of my many pro photographer friends ever got a gig based on whether their camera was full frame, but on the quality of their work. One’s creative style and understanding of things like composition, lighting, and photo-editing goes a lot farther in creating quality work than whether their camera is FF or 4/3.

“Pro” simply means you earn an income from it. The huge array of lenses available for the Canon and Nikon camera lines over the m4/3 probably has a lot more to do with their acceptance amongst pros than the sensor size.

Gbanfalvi

Considering how small Leica can be, I’m pretty sure competent engineers can keep the lens and body size down.

The other Mike H

None of my many pro photographer friends ever got a gig based on whether their camera was full frame, but on the quality of their work. One’s creative style and understanding of things like composition, lighting, and photo-editing goes a lot farther in creating quality work than whether their camera is FF or 4/3.

“Pro” simply means you earn an income from it. The huge array of lenses available for the Canon and Nikon camera lines over the m4/3 probably has a lot more to do with their acceptance amongst pros than the sensor size.

the other Mike H

Please delete the post this one is responding to… it was a reply to the wrong post.

Bart

So what is the longest telelens that you can buy for Leica M mount cameras?

No, when using 135 format, long bright lenses cannot be small, that is a simple matter of physics, and no amount of miniaturization can fix that.

A 100/2 MUST have a front element of 50mm diameter or larger, or it cannot be a 100/2.

That wide-angle to short telelenses can be made relatively small for 135 format isn’t new either, this has been known for what? about a century now, ever since the first ’35mm’ cameras hit the market.

Heat Legend

IF PANASONIC READS 43RUMORS

Forget about FF, go Super 35.

Thanks

Also, my GH3 is in preorder, I’m excited! Good work on it, you deserve a raise.

You do understand that Super 35 (indeed all 35mm film stock sizes that run through a standard magazine) is actually quite close to APS-C, right?

The FF sensor, when used for moving images, is intermediate between standard 35mm film and 70mm large format sizes. For things like nature documentaries and the like, it could conceivably bring near-IMAX quality to relatively low-budget productions.

twoomy

I would definitely buy a mirrorless full-frame system! I’m a landscape photographer and I currently shoot Nikon FX for my high-res work and m43 when size and weight of gear is more important.

I would gladly give up my big heavy rig for a mirrorless m43-style system. I realize that the lenses would still be bigger, but anything smaller and lighter than Canon/Nikon gear would be welcome. The one thing that would sell me (and other landscapers) on a new system–a high-quality wide-angle zoom that takes filters, comparable to the Nikon 16-35mm f/4. Bring it on!

Dummy00001

Reading your post, I have just recalled another request for a larger sensor.

If Panny wants to release something totally new, they should try to make a cheap medium format camera.

That IMO makes more sense than releasing new FF system now. FF market, despite all the whining (I gather of few vocal proponents), is pretty full with options right now. Medium is not so and it would be much easier for a large company like Panasonic to compete there.

Eureka

I tend to agree that there is too much emphasis on the 135 format sensor size. I still own and use Canon APS and 135 format digital bodies alongside my m4/3 system, and while they have advantages, they also have disadvantages. The 135 market is also mature and established, so unless Panasonic can do something disruptive, I don’t see a 135 mirrorless offering being particularly compelling against the current competition.

A new 120(ish) format system, especially an affordable one, is a very different proposition. The Pentax 645D shows a lot of potential as an excellent quality/price combination for photographers seriously looking to move up. Indeed, at the current pace of change, I think Panasonic would be too late to the game for the 135 rush and should look at doing medium format well. I would seriously consider Panasonic entry into that market for when quality trumps portability.

The jump from m4/3 to 135 is constantly narrowing. Instead of fighting over a current market, create a new one of affordable larger-than-135 sensor cameras.

AndersN

A square 36*36 mm sensor. Four times 4/3 (“Super 4/3”) would be 34.6*26 mm, slightly larger than 135 (36*24) but with the same diagonal.

TempTag

I like the idea but suspect new lenses for such a system would be plenty expensive!

apsac

A sensor that is a little bigger than normal FF would be the only way for Panasonic to sell such a system well. AND: I also would want to use the FF-lenses with full compatiblity on mFT – maybe with a thiny adapter

AndersN

delete this please

Digifan

No 35mmFF please.
Please, please, please (Olympus AND Panasonic) put all your resources in getting CAF on CDAF faster and more reliable as on PDAF.
THAT would trigger a lot of Pro’s to leave their Canikons at home.
With the “low” price of the D600 I’m tempted to buy a 35mmFF again, but I don’t really want to lug it around.
If fast CAF on CDAF was as mature as CAF on PDAF I wouldn’t think twice of owning or renting a 35mmFF.

twoomy

While I would love to see mirrorless FF, I totally agree with you… If Pany and Oly can get *continuous* auto focus perfected with CDAF, they would be unstoppable.

I admittedly shoot Nikon FF in addition to m43. Amazingly, the auto-focus is seemingly primitive and cumbersome on the new Nikon D800 and D600. PDAF focus points all scrunched near the middle, calibration/accuracy issues, the need to fine-tune some lenses/some bodies, and LiveView AF (CDAF) as slow as low-end point-and-shoots. My SLR friends are blown away by how fast the GH2 and E-M5 can focus and you have the added convenience of a touch-screen to indicate focus point. Keep improving this; it’s a HUGE advantage for m43.

Pany has already decided to go after thicker wallets, which are ever harder to come by. Bon chance! :-P

Dummy00001

This is a wrong poll.

The question should be first and foremost to the Panasonic/etc engineering: can they make 135 lenses small (without much of compromises) or not?

If lenses are going to be large as they are now, then very little is gained. There are plenty of S/H and new 5D2’s and D700’s on sale everywhere.

P.S. I went with the “waste of time and resources” option. Because, well it is. I’d rather take m43 where I can (most of the time) shoot with fully open aperture. (And funnily enough, people also forget why FF cameras are largish: FF sensor drains much more power, thus demanding large accumulator. Thus larger camera bodies. (If large optics alone wasn’t enough.))

Yun

The current m4/3 system that we have is consider quite successful .
Pana just need to replace it with a revolutionary sensor & come out with very fast lenses & that will be enough in semi pro segment .
A fullframe is a must for a pro & to compete with Fuji & Sony if Pana still want to be known as highend mirrorless manufacturer .
No doubt , a camera such as RX1 is tempting for everyone , a FF interchangeable system will be more attractive . But first , price have to be competitive & reasonable .

Bart

If I want a ‘full frame’ compact, I have plenty that have very good lenses and will gladly take a roll of slide film.

If Panasonic is serious about the pro market, IMO they need a larger sensor line. Maybe it doesn’t have to be traditional film size – it might be square, or a bit larger or smaller – but being able to use 3rd party lenses already in production would be an advantage.

Yes, this would take a lot of resources and to succeed they need a corporate commitment to maintain G-series development while also building FF.

On a personal note, one reason I’m likely moving to NEX is the ability to share accessories and lenses with a FF system. I think Sony is on the right track with their integrated mirrorless and SLT systems.

Jon

If Panasonic goes FF mirrorless, they should strike now and be first to market while cranking out the lenses. But if they do it, they need to maintain 100% compatibility with M43 glass to make it work. Apparently the E-mount is FF compatible. Panasonic needs to think this through.

This would also be a perfect opportunity for Olympus to get back in the game, but there’s a big question mark whether or not Olympus would even have the resources to get involved or if this would be a Panasonic only move.

Compatibility with m4/3 lenses would be a challenge, but also a big plus. Seems to me they would have to design a body flat enough to allow an adapter – or maybe a very large mount and a recessed adapter. With the extreme crop, it might only make sense for a high MP FF – say 40MP or higher.

There’s “I” missing between “F”s like in Full Idiot Fallacy.
35mm isn’t any full but small format compared to most formats used before digital sensors.
It stuck only because it was the smallest analog tech format which could offer enough resolution for most uses and reasonable sensitivity.
Digital tech has now given smaller format sensors better resolution and vastly superior sensitivity than 35mm film. Smaller sensor allows more reasonable size good quality optics especially in zooms and also makes narrow field of view tele optics smaller.

That seems to make people stuck on film era standards jealous so now they want push heretics who embraced digital age formats back to old.

mooboy

Is there a need to be so pedantic. everyone knows what admin means when he says full frame. Like it or not, full frame is part of modern photography vocab to mean 35mm. And it’s often used as a reference to compare optics from systems with different sensor sizes.

For what it is worth, I think Panasonic are stupid to be so coy about it. To even mention out as a possibility would make me worry about their commitment to m43. If I hasn’t bought into m43 already, this talk of ff would give me pause – especially considering the near abandonment of 43. Though, I guess Sony and Fuji (the two other systems I’d consider) are also playing this ff flirting game… With Sony showing most signs they’ll do it.

But, Panasonic should either do it, or else not hint about it. Don’t just let people wonder how committed they really are to m43.

If the new camera had the same or shorter flange distance as M43, than using the M43 lenses in the corp mode won’t be a problem. That by the way would give funny circular pictures from the FF sensor.

Sqweezy

Don’t discount the possibilities.
If Panasonic can come up with a brilliant, ingenious, and revolutionary way to create compact mirrorless full-frame cameras, then I, along with many others, will be eager to invest.
Ultimately, I can see no way this will not eventually happen, with Sony and Panasonic the most likely contenders. I sure hope, with Panasonic’s background and experience, that they WILL take that chance and make full-frame mirrorless a reality.

Jorginho

Go the MFT route and make a 28*21 mm sensor. And build a system around it. amost 588 mm2 sensor which with the 4:3 ratio will give smaller lenses,smaller bodies and excellent IQ. You get a 1,25 crop or so.
I don’t know if the current m43 lenses would be of any use, but could be nice. Make it 25-30 MPixels.

So I would like an inbetween APS-c FF format with the 4:3 aspect ratio. Mirrorless.

If Panasonic is serious about pro market, it better seriously consider full-frame.

If they can make small lenses for full frame is irrelevant. Just attach the m4/3 based lens and you have small lenses.

Panasonic and Olympus should consider multi-mount systems with a full-frame sensor inside.

st3v4nt

I find it’s hard to vote for poll…so I’ll pass it for time being. I think is inevitable for panasonic to go FF since Sony already go that way, if they keep avoiding they will left behind. But it is also the sign that once again after 4/3 Pany don’t have enough confidence with their m4/3. Those who should afraid of Sony and Panasonic move to go mirrorless FF will be Nikon and Canon since it’s their market that being threatened. But in the long shot if this FF trend will bring the price and size lower there may not be a reason enough to keep 4/3 and m4/3 anymore. So what will Olympus do then? Will they stubborn enough to go with 4/3 and m4/3 or they already secretly also developing FF camera?

Miroslav

I would consider buying into that system if:

1) it has IBIS – mirrorless FF makes sense if it can work with legacy glass via adapters
2) m4/3 lenses work in crop mode without problems
3) bodies are reasonably small – up to GH2 or X-E1 size for example

Fenton

Would Panasonic attack Leica where they live?
They would need a new lens partner.

If I wanted to go full frame (and I had the money) I would invest in Leica. As it is, I like my equipment small and light, and that means micro 43.

Hard2Xplain

I voted no since if they still just “thinking” then they shouldn’t do it. The “thinking” step for a company this big probably takes at least 6 months which is too late. Remember, Sony already made some few moves. If you want to do it, do it NOW!

And Panny, If you still want to take that route, don’t forget to take your friends, Oly, with you. One does not simply go FF alone!

pn

It’s much more likely that the “Pro” market will abandon FF than that Panasonic offering FF products would yield them a significant new market.

IMHO the last nail into the FF coffin will be when smaller cameras include the ability to computationally create the “bokeh” effect into images, which is very possible.

Yes, BTW bokeh is only a fad of the laptop generation. In film times photogs. longed for more DOF, not less, Leica owners included.

I find funny that now that m4/3 approximates the resolution the human eye can make out, people suddenly want to blur everything. Even Snapseed has a quick OOF utility, so it’s a dime a dozen.

The real limit of mirrorless FF are the lenses. Their size is not going to go away magically. Perhaps they can make them folding, but then they won’t be good enough. Also there will be compounded problems at the edges if register must be kept short.

As I said the only thing one can be sure is that camera makers will laugh all their way to the bank.

Amen! IMO the only “smart” thing for Panasonic is building a FF camera like the one Sony showed at Photokina, with a fixed lens. Perhaps in collaboration with Leica. That’s my dime. (And I would be interested in it, if it would come with a built in EvF, no flash, <2000 €

ArKersaint

They should avoid such bad signal to m43 community and just invest som r&d, waiting for others to fail against such fortress as canikon !
Don’t forget the strenght of available glass and continue the development of good primes for m43

Instead of yet another different bayonet with new lenses, they should invest in making fast lenses for mft like the 17/0.95, 25/0.95 and f/2 zooms.
These lenses will give similar effect like using FF camera without the mess of a new system.

BLTT

full frame, full frame, full frame bla bla bla. . . .

I got into M43 because of the size advantage (The main point of the system). And as far as I can see the quality of the system is moving forwards nicely. GREAT!

I think that going FF would be a waste, because with the µ4/3 they already have a sensor/lens combination that has the maximum amount of quality in the minimum space. The small lens size, in particular, is a virtue that allows for the production of high quality glass for less money than systems with larger sensors. And, of course, it keeps the whole system size small, which is the point of mirrorless to me. It also has nice depth of field, and by this I mean that even at fast f stops like f1.7 there is sufficient area in focus to photograph a scene, rather than a person (APS-C) or a tiny sliver of a person (FF). I know that many people lionize thin depth of field, but it’s only useful for a particular type of picture, whereas wide depth of field is more generally useful.

There is certainly the demand for the FF mirrorless (just as this query shows) and I myself would buy the mirrorless FF version of GH3 (articulated screen, same control) in addition to m43 for some tasks (portrait, low light). Because Panasonic does most ergonomic cameras in the industry, I’d love if it was from Panasonic.

However, I would not like to see another example of vendor lock-in here.

Therefore I would call for some effort from the the mirrorless community to create a move in favor of an open standard for the future FF mirrorless. I would call it MICRO FULL FRAME.

There are several parameters which this standard shall fulfill.

1. The mount is the open standard, means it is available electronically/mechanically for any manufacturer joining the game.

2. The mount is open to provide full control via dedicated adapters for all existing electronically controlled FF lenses (like Canon EF).

3. Rather short flange distance to provide compatibility with most of the existing lenses, if necessary in the crop mode (like M43). That does not mean that the new native lenses for this standard will be not sharp at the edges (NEX case), since they do not have to be extremely short. Or, alternatively, there could be a “dummy” adapter which will provide the flange distance optimal for these FF mirrorless lenses. I guess that the maximal flange distance could be the same as of M43, but this is the subject of debate and consultations with the engineers.

If Panasonic took this way there would not be even problem with lenses at the beginning.

JimD

Not a bad idea particularly item 3. Having the ability to use all or part of the sensor depending on the lens fitted is a simple idea electronically, just needs some mechanical working out for using different format glass.

HJD

Yes, the ideas that zzvisuals mention here would be great to see implemented also on a full frame video camera! :-) With the Sony NEX videocameras people are already using a multitude of different lenses. If Panasonic chose to develop such an open standard with support for IS and perhaps even some kind of AF for third party lenses (Nikon, Canon etc.) through adapers, and the video camera bodies they make are good, people would be much more inclined to buy them as they could use their existing lenses and wouldn’t risk a new vendor lock-in, as zzvisials describes. And as he points out, Panasonic wouldn’t have to rush new lenses to market, as there would already be a plentora of lenses to use. I think it would be very hard for Panasonic to compete with Nikon and Canon in lens production, and people would hesitate to switch brand if it meant they had to sell all their beloved lenses and buy new ones of a new brand. For example, I myself am already impressed by the new GH3, but the thought of having to buy a whole new range of lenses is still holding me somewhat back. I have Canon gear, and I like the stills quality I get from my Canon camera, but I would like an interchangeable lens video camera too, and at the moment Canon isn’t in that market at all. I think there are many Canon and Nikon shooters who are very happy with their still cameras and lenses, and who would like to use these lenses with IS on a video camera. And if Panasonic would offer a such a full frame video camera where people can use their existing lenses, then why not buy it? I have Canon lenses, and I would certainly be very interested in buying a full frame video camera with GH3-like qualities if I could use my existing lenses and perhaps supplement them with a Panasonic powerzoom. I think Panasonic would have a bigger chance in the video camera market than in the full frame stills camera market, which is already heavily dominated by Canon and Nikon – Sony also seems to be having a hard time gaining ground here. However, there is only a single full frame interchangeble video camera on the market as we speak, and that is Sony’s VG900. If Panasonic made an equivalent and offered more than the competition, as they already seem to do with the GH3, they could have a real seller. I’m already impressed by the GH3, and so far the only thing holding me back is the need for a new set of lenses. If they launched a video camera where I only had to buy a powerzoom to supplement my other lenses, then I for one, would be very interested! :-)

Frye

The idea of FF interests me only because I’ve acquired many vintage FF lenses. This is mainly because they’re cheap, at least compared to new M43 lenses. But Sony seems to get this idea better than Panasonic or Olympus anyway. So leave it to Sony.

@ HJD
Couple of remarks.
1. Of course if we speak about Panasonic FF mirrorless it shall be a hybrid still-video (similar to A99 but without SLT). And since it can be a bit larger than M43, it can bear high end video features. But this strategy can be also applied to camcorders.
2. If Panasonic implements an open mount, it can use AF lenses from any manufacturer (via fully-supported adapters, if necessary). Note this problem is technically solved e.g. on Black Magic cameras with the Canon mount. By that reason Panasonic shall not bother about lenses at the beginning (one can just use his/her Canon/Nikon/Sigma glass etc.), however, later on it will introduce new lenses optimized [along with the flange distance?] for uncompromised quality.

HJD

@zzvisuals
Thanks for your remarks!

1. Yes, I also like cameras that can do both photos and video well. I would however, also like to see a camcorder that is dedicated for video. I’m not into all the technical details, but I do belive certain compromises have to be made when designing a camera for both video and stills. There is an interesting interview on EOSHD (sep. 20th 2012) with Yoshiyuki Inoue, Senior Engineering Planner for the Panasonic GH3. In the interview he seems to point out a couple of challenges regarding designing a camera for both stills and video. I would welcome both a hybird camera and a camcorder.

2. I really like the open mount idea. It would really be liberating for people if they could easily use their existing lenses on a new camera/camcorder and if Panasonic did this, I think they would get a lot of positive attention. And then people could by exactly the lenses they like and put them on an open mount camera – great idea! And it’s great if making adapters which supports most of the functions in 3rd party lenses isn’t a technical problem anymore – wonderful! Greetings from Denmark :-)

The Master

Micro Four Third user: We can’t afford full frame and we can barely afford your new camera and lens offerings Mr. Panasonic.

Mr. Panasonic: We are in this to make lots of money and have no time to listen to you thin wallet weenies, so shut up and go buy a camera phone!

Frye

Come on, isn’t it just a little ridiculous that there is still no nifty fifty equiv for M43 for less than $600? Of course now that Panasonic is officially “semi-pro” I guess that blows that idea out of the water.

Anonymous

My first question is, did Sony make the sensor?

indebtedly_debtless

Current buzz is “threshold of relevance.” I’ve reached mine. All these manufacturers can make fool frame, small frame, 6k, etc., and glut the industry daily with new products made in sweatshops. Reading about these products is entertaining at best, watching these companies tailspin for revenue.

Nick

I’d rather see Olympus come out with a full frame camera that makes use of the four thirds lenses that I’ve got. Panasonic could further increase its’ involvement with Olympus by producing cameras and lenses that are compatible with the four thirds lenses and mount.

Milt

Sony has a compact “Full frame” camera, the RX1. On the other hand, Panasonic has taken some publicity heat for 43rd having a smaller sensor that APS-C in mirrorless camera, whatever the IQ reality. Full frame is bigger than 43rds or APS-C in a “bigger sensor is better” marketing environment. Mirrorless “bigger than full frame” would win marketing points and compete against Sony. The Sony RX1 has a fixed lens, but down the road who knows? The Sony camera is very expensive – $2800 without accessories.

It depends on how committed Panasonic is to taking Sony on head to head, and whether Panasonic is willing to continue to put maximum effort in developing 43rds sensors, lenses, and bodies. If they can do both, why not?

HJD

I think a full frame Panasonic video camera with interchangeble lenses like the Sony NEX-VG900 would be great. With the hacked GH2 and apparently also the upcoming GH3 they are already giving shooters better resolution and higher bit rate codecs than most of the competition in that particular price range. So they’re giving videographers something which the competition aren’t (at the moment at least). If Panasonic continued with this approach and made a high resolution full frame video camera with a flat picture profile and built in ND-filters, I believe they could grap a big market share in the (huge) enthusiast market. Naturally the price would have to be within reach of those who would otherwise be getting a 5DIII or perhaps slightly used FS100. However they must take advantage of the attention and window of opportunity that the hackable GH2 and now the GH3 is giving them among those of us who read rumor sites and follow the likes of Philip Bloom. If they do the word will spread and they could get deeper into the market of the large sensor interchangeble video cameras for enthusiasts which previously has been dominated by Sony. I belive this market has a huge potiential, as many love the look of DSLR video, but would like to achieve it with less hassle and fewer acessories. Personally I really like the idea of a camera which can be used with both a powerzoom and also primes and zoom lenses of different makes (with adapters). That’s one of the main things that make the Sony NEX-line of video cameras stand out. Panasonic tried with the AF-100, but apparently the sensor wasn’t up there with the best. Nikon is doing great work with Sony sensors, and so could Panasonic. And if they give us more than the competition with a full frame video camera, like they’re apparently doing with the GH3, and give us something like the afformentioned specs, I for one would be very tempted :-)

Lind Martin

If the camera would be a video camera and have a PL mount, I would be all in.
Otherwise a fullframe CSC would just be a MFT competitor and a waste of time.

Frog

No Full Frame, unless there is a breakthrough in sensor design allowing non-perpedicular light to be process on a sensor like on film. Fuzzy cornors are not needed, as well as mirrorless as large as a DSLR.

I don’t understand this. Panasonic touched the subject because they were asked, but they clearly didn’t want anything with FF market now, they only said what they said to not say they will NEVER do, but they don’t want to do a FF camera any time soon.

JimD

The cost of entry into a well established market is a very big gamble, will there be acceptance? Can they create a niche? Are they going to be a ‘me to’ or new idea?
When one considers that the M43 format can offer results that are better than older 135 cameras (not so old at that). The output of M43 and 135 difference cannot be seen by the vast majority of ‘eyes’. Also most pictures are published ‘on line’, thus removing the silly objections that one sees on blogs. Then, Pany could be barking up the wrong tree for a mass market. However they may make it in a smaller high quality, high price market. Toyota and Lexus comes to mind.
A way forward for them may be a world wide mass (full saturation) advertising campaign showing that real people cannot see the difference between a m43 photo and a 135/APSC photo so why carry all the weight for no result.

physica

IMO , If Panasonic is thinking about the way to go FF , I Think Panasonic need to go A.S.A.P…..

Why did I said that? Because the FF Mirrorless is still not exist at this moment , A lot of enthusiast currently own a C/N/S camera wanna to have a mirrorless FF camera , Be the First one will attract tones of enthusiast which is hunger for the FF Mirrorless even the Spec. maybe not very promising….. IMO Sony will not introduce NEX-9 before MID 2013 or maybe more later, even they won’t introduce NEX-9…. Because it will be have a potential strike to their FF A-Line….

But Panasonic will not limited by this matter , C/N/S are concern about to introduce a new FF Line will effect their DSLR businese, but Panasonic did not own any FF lines, their M43 Lines are well noted as a compact but powerful ILC, Panasonic maybe split the line into two , M43 for consumer and the enthusiast which need more compactness, FF camera is for enthusiast and some pro which want to have a better Photo Quality.

Panasonic is capable to made a FF camera, I think Panasonic could hear my voice, GX-1 Camera is great camera having a good PQ with a great compact body, I hope Panasonic will introduce a MX-1 , MH-1 or M-1 someday? G is Girls , then M is Man, LOL (just joking , no offence or bias about sex)

Even if they go FF, I hope m43 system won’t be neglected.
I find m43 so suitable for video use.

jme

It would not be a product for everyone, but there are still many people who greatly value sensor size. We all know the advantages (shallower depth of field, less noise at high ISO, higher resolution…), and some people may sacrifice size in exchange for that.

Now, Panasonic has not enough brand to do it alone, it would need at least one, if not two, committed partners, like Olympus and Pentax (they would have done much better if they had joined m4/3 than going alone). Besides, one of the main reasons why m4/3 is doing so well in the mirrorless market is because of lens availability, and that would require time and, again, a committed partner. And furthermore, they would have to think seriously what would be their competitive advantage against products such as the D600 or 6D. Size? These cameras are not that big, and a FF mirrorless will not be pocketable anyway, but there is some margin. New technology, design, price? Who knows.

And another consideration. I guess that very few current FF users may consider to move from their established systems to a new, uncertain one. The customers could be, mostly, amateurs who want to upgrade. Are there enough of them who would opt for a Panasonic instead of a Fuji X-Pro 1, D600 or 6D?

However, there is still some hope, because, at least, so far there is no FF mirrorless system (besides Leica), and that alone would give them a lot of publicity.

Bart

The advantages AND disadvantages.

– especially tele-lenses are bigger by necessity for a larger sized medium.
– cost, it is totally unavoidable that a larger sensor will be more expensive then a smaller one. No matter the technology, larger area means larger chance on defects means lower yield.

Btw, of the D7000 users I know, NONE considers upgrading to a D600, some consider a D800 however. Why? The price difference between the 2 makes the D800 much better value for the money when they want ‘full frame’, but most rather want to keep the ‘reach’ of their longer lenses, and would lose quite a bit in that area by no longer having a ‘crop factor’.

Its those who actually know what ‘full frame’ does for their pictures that have a good reason to look at it, but most people don’t seem to understand what they are looking at, and just think that bigger is always better.

Every camera and medium size is a compromise, and different compromises tend to fit different applications, so no, bigger isn’t always better, but sometimes it is.

Andre

Perhaps it would be possible for a manufacturer to build a body that is compatible with both nikon and canon glassout of the box. I know it sounds stupid but it would mean that the buyer has 200+ lenses to choose from and if you’ve already invested in one of those systems the transition would be easy.
As canon and nikon are pacing themselves releasing new things ( magic lantern is able to do things with a canon that should have been there in the first place ), it would be possible to create a body with superior combo of stills and video.
To me that is the future, compatibility, it is the only feature lacking with both canon and nikon. Release a body that is provided with capability to use most popular systems and you have something interesting.
Im sure there are technical difficulties but hey, didn’t mankind put a man on the moon? :-)

cabletangle

With all the amazing engineers that Panasonic has and their long experience they could launch a world beater if they wanted. Full Frame, SD lens mount – full 4K 4096 x 2160 with a powerful processor allowing fast frame rates and something competitive with the new Sony 7S camera in terms of low light capability. This unit would take over the market. Why not do it ? The market is moving so fast that Panasonic cannot afford to bring out an also ran, out of date by next week, camera.

Disclaimer: 43Rumors has no affiliation with any of the equipment manufacturers mentioned on this site. Please visit their official websites by typing the specific brand name and adding .com after it in your browser. All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.

Here is the definition of the word “rumor” according to Merriam Webster dictionary:

Pronunciation: \ˈrü-mər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English rumour, from Anglo-French, from Latin rumor clamor, gossip; akin to Old English rēon to lament, Sanskrit rauti he roars

Date: 14th century
1: talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source
2: a statement or report current without known authority for its truth
3 archaic : talk or report of a notable person or event

Content Copyright
If you want to use any image from this website you have to ask for permission. You cannot copy more than 20 words from any of our posts. And you have to define the source with "Source: 43rumors.com" (working link).

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website.
If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site.
You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site.
For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.